{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}


preptest36 - LSAT PrepTest XXXVI Explained A Guide to the...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
LSAT PrepTest XXXVI Explained A Guide to the December, 2001 LSAT *LSAT is a registered trademark of the Law School Admission Council. *
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
LSAT PREPTEST 36 DECEMBER 2001 KAPLAN EXPLANATION DOCUMENT SECTION I LOGICAL REASONING 1. (A) Method of Ar gument Pr edict an ans w er to all method of ar gument questions. Joanna says that a company emerging from bankruptcy must (“the only way”) change its business. Yet Ruth is quick to point to such a company that diversifies and succeeds in a way that Joanna deems “futile.” Simply put, that’s a “counter” to Joanna’s “claim,” (A). Ruth “explains” (B) how the Kelton Co. turned itself around, but that’s not an “alternative” to any “phenomenon” Joanna describes. An analogy (C) is a declaration that two unlike things share some significant similarity; but Kelton is an example of a once-bankrupt company, not an analogy to one. Both Joanna and Ruth’s claims are concrete, and neither accuses the other of ambiguity (D). And if anyone here is “excluding a plausible alternative” (E) it’s Joanna, who refuses to accept that a company cannot change its nature after bankruptcy and become successful. 2. (A) W eak en the Ar gument T o w eak en a r ecommenda tion, seek alter na ti v es to it. The nutritionist denies the usefulness of juicing by asserting that there’s no nutritional difference between eating a piece of produce and drinking it juiced. That’s the key evidence; sentence 3, and the gist of it is: You can eat a whole carrot, save $100, and get the same benefit. But what if eating solid food is problematic? (A) offers a scenario in which people would be wise to purchase the juicer in order to get the benefits of produce. As an argument against juicing, (B) is a 180. Affordability (C) isn’t the issue; necessity is. (D) implies that the nutritionist only knows about “early prototypes” and hence isn’t hip to the current state of juicing, but the whole mess is outside the scope. (E) draws an irrelevant comparison between vitamin pills and the nutrients in produce. This is not an argument that produce needn’t be consumed at all, just that one needn’t buy an expensive juicer to consume it. 3. (C) Assumption Ar guments tha t so-and-so is “impossib le” hing e on the assumption tha t no plausib le alter na ti v es e xist. The defense goes like so: Mikkeli cannot have plagiarized Halden, because he doesn’t read the only language in which Halden was published, and no reviews exist. That argument hinges on the assumption that there’s no other plausible way in which Mikkeli could have gotten close enough to Halden to rip her off. How about the intervention of a third party? That’d do it. So (C) is right: The author is assuming that no third, Norwegian-literate party passed on to Mikkeli the substance of Halden’s work. If (C) were false the plagiarism charge would gain plausibility, so Mikkeli’s defender must be depending on (C).
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page1 / 34

preptest36 - LSAT PrepTest XXXVI Explained A Guide to the...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon bookmark
Ask a homework question - tutors are online